Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):Whats interesting there is no mention of MH current sole US service - NRT-LAX, but instead MH codeshare on 3 AA flights to the US from NRT including LAX. hmmm....

I am pretty sure that the MHNRTLAXNRT sectors are goners. The flights have already been zeroed out in the front cabin. What is the point of a 4 weekly service anyway if 3 daily codeshares via NRT will be available with a bunch of additional options via Europe. I also presume that a similar deal with JL may be forthcoming for transpacific services.

Quoting changyou (Reply 2):Rumour has it that NRT-LAX might be reverted back to TPE-LAX. Just some gossip from within the company. And with that, 744 will be kept only for LAX operation.

I suspected that might be a possibility months ago when Malaysia announced it was joining oneworld.

The TPE-LAX market is saturated and low-yielding as Asia-U.S. markets go, but then again, these days so is TYO-LAX. However, between AA and JAL oneworld already had a substantial presence in the TYO-LAX market, whereas absent the EVA Air codeshare, AA has now lost its nonstop connectivity between the U.S. and TPE. Malaysia switching its U.S.-bound sector to go via TPE would allow AA to funnel some TPE-bound feed onto the Malaysia flight to compliment the JBA codeshare on JAL via NRT.

If that were to happen, though, a 747 would be totally unnecessary - 777 would be more than sufficient.

Quoting changyou (Reply 2):Rumour has it that NRT-LAX might be reverted back to TPE-LAX.

Quoting commavia (Reply 3):The TPE-LAX market is saturated and low-yielding as Asia-U.S. markets go, but then again, these days so is TYO-LAX.

Anything less than a daily operation will be dramatic for yields, whether the route is maintained via NRT or moved to TPE or any other transit point (HKG, ICN, MNL, etc) for that matter. TG is very much in the same boat with its 4 weekly operation at a god forsaken hour from BKK.

Quoting commavia (Reply 3):If that were to happen, though, a 747 would be totally unnecessary - 777 would be more than sufficient.

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 1):I am pretty sure that the MHNRTLAXNRT sectors are goners. The flights have already been zeroed out in the front cabin.

That makes sense. NRT-LAX is simply too competitive a route.

Quoting changyou (Reply 2):Rumour has it that NRT-LAX might be reverted back to TPE-LAX. Just some gossip from within the company. And with that, 744 will be kept only for LAX operation.

I'm not sure of the value of that. The point of a code share is to provide the connectivity.

TPE-LAX was dropped as a money losing route. Why would it be restarted? Best for MAS to keep a presence via a code share via CDG, LHR, and NRT. While I'm not certain why TPE wasn't included, I suspect it is due to available seats on AA metal at NRT.

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 4):Anything less than a daily operation will be dramatic for yields, whether the route is maintained via NRT or moved to TPE or any other transit point

True, although TPE-LAX is never going to be an insanely high-yielding route to begin with. If MH wants to maintain some token presence to LAX for prestige or strategic reasons - and I'm not saying it does - then I don't think TPE is any worse a stopping point from which to do it, and in some ways is actually preferable to NRT.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 5):TPE-LAX was dropped as a money losing route. Why would it be restarted? Best for MAS to keep a presence via a code share via CDG, LHR, and NRT.

Again, I could see it having some value purely so oneworld has some presence in the nonstop U.S.-TPE market, which is now controlled by SkyTeam and Star.

If MH is indeed cancelling NRT-LAX, it certainly should help AA's and JAL's loads out of NRT as MH will likely be steering some of their U.S.-bound traffic onto the AA flights (although connecting times are relatively unfavorable). The connections via Europe (LHR/CDG/FRA) onto AA-bound flights offer very well-timed connections, though.

As we have discussed in other threads the airlines US services have reportedly been loss making for ages and seemingly run for prestige only these days. Gone is EWR while LAX has seen both reduced capacity and frequency.

Even with the reduction in capacity, the LAX loads have not been that great only averaging 70.8% for 2012.

Leveraging oneworld partners is probably a great opportunity for MAS. Between JAL and AA at NRT along with AA/BA at LHR it should be able to offer a wide range of flights to channel passengers to/from the US.

I've always wondered why some of the SE Asian carriers don't change their N. American one-stops to cities such as KIX, NGO, FUK, CTS etc...they could have exclusive service from those markets to the US/Canada and provide additional feed at alliance hubs.

MHKUL-NGO-LAX for example would benefit from oneworld membership at all three points. Why fight it out in saturated markets against the home team?

Quoting commavia (Reply 6):True, although TPE-LAX is never going to be an insanely high-yielding route to begin with. If MH wants to maintain some token presence to LAX for prestige or strategic reasons - and I'm not saying it does - then I don't think TPE is any worse a stopping point from which to do it, and in some ways is actually preferable to NRT.

One large benefit to Malaysia joining OneWorld is cancelling its flight to LAX. Sadly its doubtful we will see AA fly to KL even when the 787 arrives.

Quoting commavia (Reply 6):MH is indeed cancelling NRT-LAX, it certainly should help AA's and JAL's loads out of NRT as MH will likely be steering some of their U.S.-bound traffic onto the AA flights (although connecting times are relatively unfavorable). The connections via Europe (LHR/CDG/FRA) onto AA-bound flights offer very well-timed connections, though.

LHR is a great connecting point since both airlines have large operations to London, especially for east coast USA connections.

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 8):I've always wondered why some of the SE Asian carriers don't change their N. American one-stops to cities such as KIX, NGO, FUK, CTS etc...they could have exclusive service from those markets to the US/Canada and provide additional feed at alliance hubs.

That's an excellent point. I don't know if those markets are big enough to support a daily flight, but with connecting traffic, it could work. And l bet yields would be a little better out of some of those markets as well considering the lack of competition.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 9):One large benefit to Malaysia joining OneWorld is cancelling its flight to LAX. Sadly its doubtful we will see AA fly to KL even when the 787 arrives.

sad because thats one less airline that connects to the indian subcontinent. I used to be a regular on MH, but then they started cutting their frequencies and EK started LAX, so i switched to EK. Now EK has become rediculous on the pricing from LAX, so i was looking at maybe trying MH again, but with their old product, it doesnt interest me much anymore.

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 8):
I've always wondered why some of the SE Asian carriers don't change their N. American one-stops to cities such as KIX, NGO, FUK, CTS etc...they could have exclusive service from those markets to the US/Canada and provide additional feed at alliance hubs.

Might be exclusive, however even when the home carrier don't operate these services one needs to wonder why.

For example today the sole flight between these markets and California is UA's SFO-KIX. The other routes have come and gone. SFO-NGO, LAX-KIX, LAX-NGO etc have all seen failure (often repeated failures) over the years.

So I cant see how these routes would do much better being flown by a 3rd nation airline like MH.

Does anyone know if MH plans to purchase 787's and perhaps use them for transpacific flights to the US? Would this offer cost savings for operating such a route? I would hate to see them leave LAX and I am sure OneWorld passengers connecting to/from an AA flight would agree. This is my opinion as I haven't seen any mention of AA winning any "Best Cabin Crew" Awards like MH has. Please correct me if I am wrong. =]

Quoting AirAfreak (Reply 20):Does anyone know if MH plans to purchase 787's and perhaps use them for transpacific flights to the US?

Not for the foreseeable future. The B777 will be up first for a decision on it's future and personally i'm seeing them go for a refurbishment rather then anything else. The talk there is about the B777 leaving the fleet within the next 1-2 years for the moment is just that & beyond it nobody is talking about realistically possible & viable replacements.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21):Personally if they leave LAX, let them leave.
I think OW provides a very unique opportunity for MH to finally fix its troubled US operations.

That's what i'd put my on.

The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.